[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

Except for the one that blockhed and I mentioned, which is that they are not operating in a closed market. They are competing with a number of other portable music/content formats, and if they degrade their quality or raise their fees, this market will devour them without pity.

---

Which will lead to their failure and demise, and which will lead to....
No more satellite radio for anyone? Possible, I suppose. While this will not impact those in major cities who still have high speed internet access and 30 radio stations to listen to, it will impact those in rural parts of the 48 states, for whom satellite radio was a godsend, bringing dozens of music channels to areas that might have been lucky to pull in a couple distant terrestial radio signals.
So while the market--as defined as "all available sources of radio entertainment" will not suffer, the smaller market niche of "satellite-distributed radio entertainment" may end up resting in peace on the ashheap of radio technologies, along with AM stereo and other technologies that were good but were snuffed out by disastrous business practices.
Ronald Schoedel

[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

In general, too few entities own too many TV & radio stations. Should have never been allowed to happen. Free Enterprise is only good if it is not stifled, as it is increasingly. The watchdogs are not being watched anymore.

---

The problem is that Clinton neutered the watchdogs, and Bush has not gone down to the pound to get new watchdogs. But your second sentence confuses me. Big business, and their friends in the Whitehouse over the last two presidencies, lobbied big for this "unstifling" of free enterprise, arguing that by removing the government-mandated ownership caps, they could realize economies of scale and develop all sorts of great new things for radio. Instead, they did the first, and the promised innovation never happened.
Sometimes limits on free enterprise are necessary, and the FCC ownership caps of days gone by were one of those limits that worked well and promoted a diversity of ownership and voices on the airwaves.
Ronald Schoedel

[chesterdad]

Who will profit from the merger? The CEO and Chairman. What ever happened to responsible management of companies?
Consumers will lose with less content at higher prices. Have you seen what the merger of Cell phone companies have done to rates lately? how about 30% higher with no increase in quality. I predict the FCC will approve this because the Executive branch only cares about big business and not consumers.
Maybe for the deal to be accepted the FCC should require that 20% of the bandwidth be allocated to public access and use. Management would still go for the deal with that caveat.

[j_drake]

Quote:

---

What are the other commercial-free subscription-based radio services not censored by the FCC out there that you are talking about?

---

Exactly and not just censored but ignored. If youre not in a major market i.e. New York, Chicago etc, but rather live in a small town and/or a rural area you don't count when it comes to the regulatory decisions being made by the politicos on both sides of the aisle. I do not have either Sirius or XM but my brother who drives truck cross-country swears by XM, mostly 'cause it's commercial free and there is always something he likes available, even when deep in the Ozarks or high over the Rockies or out in the Heartland.
While one can always hope that the folks doing this deal will indeed think outside the box, and honestly work to keep the best programming of both companies while striving to keep costs at a reasonable level, it's not something I'm going to bet the farm on.

[Felix001]

I think the FCC will approve this merger. Reason: It's unlikely either will survive the next five years anywhere close to present configuration if the two companies continue to compete as they are now. The choices will be approve a merger with some stringent restrictions or have both declare bankruptcy (with Uncle Sam picking up a sizable chunk of the termination costs) and lose considerable capability as one or both organizations restructure their debt, tube their investors and reconstitute in a downsized capability.
You think the USG wants to take on even more restructuring debt, la the airline pension plans, while we continue to flail away in Iraq?
Not a chance. This merger will be approved...and rapidly too.

[Macheath_Messer]

I thought the de-regulation of the broadcast industry is the EXACT reason we are in the state we are right now. At one time, regulation limited the ability of one company to hold too much power in the way of radio in a single market. That was done away with, as has been mentioned, and we are where we are today because of the "open" market that was created due to de-regulation. The ones with the money bought everything up. Free market, indeed; free to those who have the money when it comes to the airwaves! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
FWIW

[KBCraig]

Quote:

---

I thought the de-regulation of the broadcast industry is the EXACT reason we are in the state we are right now.

---

There hasn't been any de-regulation, nor anything approaching it.
What they called "deregulation" was really just changing the regulations. Every aspect of broadcast station ownership is strictly regulated and requires FCC approval.

[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

There hasn't been any de-regulation, nor anything approaching it.
What they called "deregulation" was really just changing the regulations. Every aspect of broadcast station ownership is strictly regulated and requires FCC approval.

---

Overall speaking, this is of course true. Obviously the FCC was not abolished along with its regulations.
In terms of ownership caps, deregultion did in fact occur, in that the ownership caps were abolished entirely. Which is why you now have station groups that own 1200+ stations where they formerly owned 200. Given that there are something like 10,000 commercial radio stations, I am not too comfortable with a handful of companies controlling the vast majority of the airwaves.
Ronald

[himbo]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would suspect that once the two providers have merged fees will go up and quality will go down. There is little incentive for any other course to be taken by the provider.

---

Except for the one that blockhed and I mentioned, which is that they are not operating in a closed market. They are competing with a number of other portable music/content formats, and if they degrade their quality or raise their fees, this market will devour them without pity.

---

OK, so if the merger happens and Sirius/XM raises their fees, who are you going to switch to?
What are the other commercial-free subscription-based radio services not censored by the FCC out there that you are talking about?
An iPod is not satellite radio. It's a player.
A CD player is not satellite radio. It's a player.
iTunes Music Store is not satellite radio. It's a store.

---

Correct on all counts. The point is that while they are all different devices that go about what they do in different ways, the end result of what they do is the same, and if you think that they aren't all competing for the same consumers in the same market space, you're mistaken.
And what if they do raise their fees? What if they raised their fees now? I assume that you're subscribed to one or the other (if you said so already, forgive me, I forgot). If your service raised its rates, would you jump ship to the other one? If the choice was between seeing the rates raised and seeing the company go down, which would you rather see?
It's well-known that both of these companies are operating at a loss and have been since day one. Maybe a merger is a survival move for both companies, and if so, you'd be looking at the same sort of question as the ones above. Would you rather see them both fold, or would you rather see them merge?